PDA

View Full Version : The blame game already starting. Ron Paul supporters.



Dolphins9954
09-19-2012, 08:08 PM
Time for Ron Paul Fans to Support the Constitution


There is no more time for games, no room for hurt feelings. Ron Paul fans, you need to choose, because not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It’s that simple. And you could make the difference.

The Republicans are not libertarians, but at least libertarian-conservatives make up an influential and growing part of the party. There are exactly zero “libertarian-liberals.” Nor can there be; Democrats embrace everything libertarians oppose.

That’s why it’s silly to dismiss Romany as no different than Obama. Some wave off their obligation to choose with a cliché, that Romney is just “the lesser of two evils.”

Even if that’s true, the key is “lesser.” If you have to choose between encountering a hubcap thief and an axe murderer, you'd be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the hatchet.

This is no time to “make a statement” or pout that Ron Paul got treated badly in Tampa. He did get treated badly in Tampa, and that was stupid and unnecessary.

But if you are truly dedicated to the Constitution you won’t let it be trampled in order to make some soon-to-be-moot point to the anonymous GOP party hacks responsible for not giving Ron Paul a primo speaking slot.

Priorities, people. Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here.

No choice is a choice, and with the polls showing a dead-even race every vote that does not go to Romney is effectively a vote for Obama. There's no debate here; you opt out and you support Obama by default. How can any principled libertarian do that?

Ron Paul guys, Gary Johnson guys, Virgil Goode guys... the Constitution needs you. It needs you now. It needs you to put hard, hurt feelings aside and help elect the only one of the two candidates who has any chance of moving America in the direction you want.

Support and vote for Mitt Romney, or help Obama complete his transformation of America into a nation that violates every principle you claim you embrace.
It’s time to choose.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/18/Time-for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/09/vader-1.jpg

Spesh
09-19-2012, 08:47 PM
"Libertarians, we need you now! Dont indirectly violate your principles by allowing Obama to win! Directly violate your principles by voting for Romney!" :lol:

Actually, i find this interesting. I get that both candidates are similar. I get that many feel to vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But i think this raises a interesting question: which candidate is truly considered the greater evil?

Both enjoy big government. Is Obama's attempts to pressure Youtube into banning the "Innocence of Muslims" considered worse then Romney's attempts to prevent people from voting? Is Obama's big government intrusion into private business considered worse then Romney's big government intrusion into foreign nations? The list could keep on. And if all those things are evaluated as equal(right to free speech equal to the right to vote), then is it a numbers game? Does Obama have slightly more big government policies then Romney?

Dolphins9954
09-19-2012, 09:27 PM
"Libertarians, we need you now! Dont indirectly violate your principles by allowing Obama to win! Directly violate your principles by voting for Romney!" :lol:

Actually, i find this interesting. I get that both candidates are similar. I get that many feel to vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But i think this raises a interesting question: which candidate is truly considered the greater evil?

Both enjoy big government. Is Obama's attempts to pressure Youtube into banning the "Innocence of Muslims" considered worse then Romney's attempts to prevent people from voting? Is Obama's big government intrusion into private business considered worse then Romney's big government intrusion into foreign nations? The list could keep on. And if all those things are evaluated as equal(right to free speech equal to the right to vote), then is it a numbers game? Does Obama have slightly more big government policies then Romney?

And that's the shame of it really. It becomes a big game of trying to rationalize which sh!tty candidate to vote for. Unless you're a total partisan who actually believes their candidate is a great choice. All we're really doing is choosing which version of Big Brother to run our lives. While people get so partisan over their crap candidates and parties. The venom is spewed back and fourth but in the end both sides vote for less liberty and more government no matter what. It's a dog and pony show.

phins_4_ever
09-19-2012, 09:34 PM
And so is Breitbart telling you......now everybody jump in line. :chuckle:

Spesh
09-19-2012, 10:24 PM
And that's the shame of it really. It becomes a big game of trying to rationalize which sh!tty candidate to vote for. Unless you're a total partisan who actually believes their candidate is a great choice. All we're really doing is choosing which version of Big Brother to run our lives. While people get so partisan over their crap candidates and parties. The venom is spewed back and fourth but in the end both sidesvote for less liberty and more government no matter what. It's a dog and pony show.

To me there is a bit of a difference though.

I get Obama hasnt lived up to his promises. Im not unaware of the fact that Obama no longer mentions "transparency" in his speeches. But Romney and company are actively talking about how electing them would lead to less government intrusion. Yet, the majority of their policies are big government. And now you got writers like the one you linked trying to browbeat Libertarians into voting for Romney(at the same time Romney is trying to limit the ability to vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate no less) by suggesting they arent "real" party members if they dont directly violate their principles.

Utter hypocrisy of all that aside, why should Libertarians feel they have less in common with Obama than they do Romney? Why should the author assume Libertarians hate Obama more then Romney? He is demanding(and trying to bully) the Libertarian vote to violate what they feel is just and instead vote for a candidate that more resembles some of what they want. Best case scenario, with everyone who planned to vote Libertarian voting for one of the two candidates, wouldnt it be a decent chance that Obama futher increases his lead?

trojanma
09-19-2012, 10:38 PM
Perhaps, it all depends on what part of Libertarianism you are most aligned with.
Economic- aligning you at least philosophically with Repubs
Socially- Aligning you with Dems who prefer to stay out of what you put in your body, who you have sex with.

Dolphins9954
09-24-2012, 11:58 PM
Libertarians do share views with both parties. The GOP "theory" of sound fiscal and monetary policies along with limited government. Which they don't follow one iota. And the Dems "theory" of civil liberties and anti-war. Which they don't follow as well. As someone who is libertarian leaning for sure I don't see how any libertarian can rationalize voting for either of these me. It's a catch 22 no matter who you vote for. And a total violation of my principles. The only reason people assume these are Romney votes is because Ron Paul and Gary Johnson ran in the GOP primaries and libertarians. But I'm pretty sure without a doubt libertarians will overwhelmingly vote for Johnson or write in Paul. No libertarian worth his salt will vote for these 2 candidates. Unless you're Glenn Beck.

Dolphins9954
09-25-2012, 12:07 AM
Breitbart Writer Begs Libertarians To Vote Romney — Sorry, It Ain’t Going To Work




In a two-part column over at Breitbart’s Big Government, Kurt Schlichter practically begs libertarians to “support our Constitution” and vote for Mitt Romney this November in order to avoid not only the “destruction of this country” by way of a second Obama term, but also to avoid the destruction of libertarianism by way of the Libertarian Party becoming a pariah.
The begging will not work, especially when it comes with the usual platitudinous overtures to America and the Constitution being at stake; and the suggestion that not supporting Romney is to selfishly disregard of the Constitution in the name of ideology. No matter how you dice the logic, a committed Republican accusing libertarians of not supporting the Constitution is nothing short of laughable.

Schlichter’s misunderstanding of the libertarian mentality doesn’t help, either. The first and most obvious mistake he makes is to conveniently overlook the fact that small-L libertarians are truly unconcerned with the Libertarian Party. “Remember the Greens?” he ominously asks libertarians, alluding to the fact that following the Green Party’s role as “spoiler” in Al Gore‘s 2000 presidential bid, the “Greens” died off and became a punchline.

He naively assumes libertarians actually care what happens to the party that, for years, has been mismanaged and run by glibertarians like Wayne Allyn Root, a birther who only recently realized it’s time to give up the act and join the GOP. For many libertarians, the party already is a punchline. And looking at this year’s “none of the above” incident (http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/anarchy-at-the-libertarian-party-convent) at the Libertarian National Convention, can you blame them?

Schlichter makes the case that libertarians will sure-as-Hell never find a home in the Democratic Party, what with the party’s “free this, free that, bailouts this, bailouts that” spectacle at the 2012 DNC. He rightfully points out that the Dems only occasionally make attempts to reach out to libertarians, but are happy to eliminate that support at the drop of a hat. This is probably true. But dedicated libertarians find themselves politically homeless mostly because the corrupting forces of party politics are inherently in conflict with remaining ideologically principled. For many libertarians, a functioning political party to call home is not the desired end-game.

Schlichter’s blind partisanship is unlikely to convince libertarians either. What’s most insulting about the column is how he lectures libertarians about how President Obama is on an unstoppable path of “trampling” the Constitution and Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time. He notes in terribly overwrought language that “Obama’s spent nearly four years trampling the First Amendment,” and that the Second Amendment is “just one Supreme Court vote from being snatched away.” Look, it’s no secret that the Obama administration has a seeming disregard for the Constitution. Schlichter suggests that, therefore, libertarians who are truly dedicated to the age-old document need to support Romney and the Republican Party because they are different — they will save the Constitution and end the madness.

But hey, guess what? Many of President Obama’s constitutional abuses are simply extensions of the ones initiated under President George W. Bush — you know, that other unsupportable Republican that we libertarians were all told to shut up and vote for in 2004.

It was the Republican Party that rammed through the PATRIOT Act that Obama reauthorized last year. It was the Republican Party that set the precedent for the use of indefinite detention, torture, executive overreach, and the crackdowns on government whistleblowers. It was the Republican Party that heightened the crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries operating legally under their states’ laws. It was the Republican Party that voted for Bush’s spending spree and expansion of federal powers under Medicare Part D, the No Child Left Behind Act, etc.

Schlichter points to the administration’s recent “rousting” of the Innocence of Muslims filmmaker as an Obama First Amendment abuse. The president’s handling of this entire “movie-causing-riots” debacle was, indeed, frustrating to libertarians. And so we libertarians should support Romney because he’s dedicated to the First Amendment, right?

Not quite. This is the same candidate who pledged to “vigorously” fight the scourge that is all forms of adult pornography. Oh, and under the last Republican president, we saw an increase of pointless federal prosecutions of porn-makers like John Stagliano, who film consenting adults doing consensual things — you know, the kind of stuff Republicans hate when it involves sex, drugs, or gambling.

Sure, this current presidency has some constitutional abuses you wouldn’t have seen under Bush, but that’s because this is precisely how our two-party system works: When Democrats are in power, they abuse the Constitution by lighting the metaphorical candle at one end; and when the Republicans are in power, they abuse it by lighting the other end.

A Romney presidency would surely not be exempt from this natural process.

And so it is truly backwards for Schlichter to implore libertarians to “support the Constitution” by casting a vote for the Republican Party. Here’s a better idea:

How about you start supporting the Constitution? And how about you actually make an effort to incorporate libertarians by, for starters, not dismissing them only until it becomes politically necessary to beg for their support?


http://www.mediaite.com/online/breitbart-writer-begs-libertarians-to-vote-romney-sorry-it-aint-going-to-work/